vol_scouter

Merlyn, As usual, when shown not to have the better argument, you pick at the edges. By your definition, there exists no consensus opinion because it is no harmony - the minority is very vocal though at this time it remains the majority opinion. Your point had been to discredit the discussion against AGW by saying that the critics here were not able to make such statements. When shown that you are once again wrong, you try to turn the discussion. There are scientists on this list and professional climatologists who based upon available evidence do not believe in AGW. On either side, it is a belief because AGW is not settled science and no amount of consensus opinions will make it so or not. Only time can ever verify it and then there are so many confounding processes that it may never be known with certainty.

Merlyn, There are professional climate experts who dispute AGW. I believe that being a full time researcher with a PhD in theoretical physics gives me the credentials to evaluate the validity of scientific models and arguments. The evidence that has been presented to date provides some evidence for global warming but it is far from convincing for AGW especially since the changes made to the raw data, which raw data is used, and how it is evaluated is not published. I am sorry that your understanding of the scientific community precludes understanding how a powerful viewpoint can influence an entire field. As to CO2, water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than is CO2 but it is not considered in most models because it fluctuates so much. Many for the models do not take into account variations in solar power output. It is far from clear that the global warming trend is not due to the increased solar flux that man has no control. Also, there is a consensus opinion from climatologists that there is no AGW - they are in the minority but often in science the minority opinion is eventually shown to be correct.

Beevah, You make a good point about a lack of emphasis in the south on getting a good education. I am was born and raised in the south so I can be critical of my brethren. I have a BS in engineering, an MS and PhD in physics, and an MD. I am very well educated, articulate, and well read. I have presented talks all over the world on aspects of my research (some of the talks have been invited). Despite this kind of record, I frequently face bigotry due to the fact that I hail from the south. I would imagine that my Georgia brethren have experienced similar discrimination from the enlightened elites from the north. I have been called a racist because I am from the south so much that the appellation has little sting. Upon questioning the liberal elites, I usually find that I have more black friends and colleagues (not to mention carrying for black patients) than they do. I was once told that anyone who uses the phrase 'y' all' can never have anything important to say. My retort was that 'y' all' is inconclusive rather than you guys and that the mark of intelligence was to evaluate the ideas conveyed rather than the accent and idioms used to convey those ideas. So excuse us if we get to be a little hair trigger. On the other hand, the south too frequently devalues a good education. We are intelligent and have fine schools producing scholars making a large difference in our world. I good discuss my reasons for those values being askew in the south (as it also is in other sections of the country), but that is not germain to this discussion. Merlyn, I wrote a long discussion about the folly of consensus opinion in science and the pressures to conform that addresses some of your questions. The evidence for global warming seems to fall well within historical values (measured or estimated). When a model was allowed to increase only the CO2 without an other processes (such as increased plant growth, ocean buffering, et cetera), the earth's temperature increased. I do not believe that anthropogenic global warming exists. I do believe that there are local effects (e.g. Phoenix) but not globally. By the way, have you ever asked yourself what the average global temperature means and how it is determined? Think of the temperature variation over the entire earth and realize that the variations that will cause the ill effects are on the order of a few degrees. In any given day, the temperature variation over the earth is an order of magnitude larger than the temperature effect. This means that the data must be very accurate to detect such small changes. The lack of transparency of the researcher's methods calls into question their results. Since the centers in question supply much of the data for the rest of the world, the whole argument when combined with the emails from the CRU makes the possibility of fraud high.

Can anyone on the list confirm this story?

I really get tired of the narrow minded prejudice of the left to Southerners because they do not like some of the viewpoints. Why do you think that northerners are more knowledgeable? It is an arrogant, narrow minded, and bigoted attitude. Many of us who are extremely well educated and knowledgeable do not agree with your conclusions. Furthermore, global cooling is a far more serious problem for human survival than is global warming. The earth was much warmer during the eras of dinosaurs and it is felt that it was lush with plant life. Ages with global cooling have a far less surface area available for plant life. Glaciers covered much of north america with much of our bread basket covered with snow and ice. So the larger risk is global cooling. If you wish to argue scientific beliefs, then do so. Do not insult me because I do not hail from your section of the country.

Hal, I don't know what I posted leads you to imply that the BSA should exclude a group. I did not say that. As to the numbers, here are the CDC information: Following is the distribution of the estimated number of cases of HIV/AIDS diagnosed among adults and adolescents in the 34 states with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting, by transmission category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate. Transmission Category Estimated # of HIV/AIDS Cases, in 2007 Adult and Adolescent Male Adult and Adolescent Female Total Male-to-male sexual contact 22,472 - 22,472 Injection drug use 3,133 1,806 4,939 Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,260 - 1,260 High-risk heterosexual contact* 4,551 9,076 13,627 Other** 102 96 198 *Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection. ** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified. From numerous talks at medical meetings (such as at Harvard), most of the women in the High-risk heterosexual contact are prostitutes who have a high rate of IV drug abuse while the high risk behavior for heterosexual males is with prostitutes. I feel that it is important that people make decisions based upon what is known rather than on mis-information. Early on in the HIV/AIDS disease research it was believed by some researchers that it would sweep through the heterosexual community. However, the scientific consensus opinion turned out to be false. Several homosexual rights groups pushed that point because they were concerned that if this was a homosexual disease, that the public would not be inclined to push funding. That is a sad statement on our society but unfortunately likely to be true. Male to female transmission is more common than female to male. This is especially true in the case of anal intercourse. The transmission pattern for HIV is not reason to conclude anything about the homosexual community. As with venereal disease, monogamous couples who were virgins prior to meeting, are not likely to ever suffer from these diseases (still a small risk with blood products so not quite 100%). Homosexuals being more likely to have HIV/AIDS has nothing to do with whether they should be a scouter or a scout. It is not the person that one knows or highly suspects to have HIV/AIDS that will transmit it via an injury, it is the person that no one would suspect who will transmit the virus.

There are two distinct issues in this debate - 1. Integrity and 2. Consensus opinions in science. Integrity - Some scientists get enamored with an idea (i.e. - AGW) and sacrifice their integrity to defend their position. Sometimes this is more innocent in nature such as a scientist who gets a good idea that seems to be correct and then doggedly pursues the idea discounting the negatives and highlighting the positives; this is something that we all do as in these discussions. A relatively rare but more serious and damaging problem with integrity is where poor science is pursued for non-scientific reasons. There are good points on both sides of the AGW debate though from my personal reading, I see absolutely no convincing evidence for AGW. There are some who see AGW as a method to achieve other goals. One goal is that they believe that society would be better served by 'greener' transportation, etc. or that our country should decrease dependence upon foreign oil. Others see the USA as evil and exploitative so would like to punish it. True scientists would want to make their data available and their models known so that others can verify their work. That has not been done in some of the centers who provide information to the IPCC which advises the UN. Also, a factor is funding. There are few scientific endeavors that can be done in one's garage any longer. Scientists are depend upon funding that is primarily from the government. Since there are limited funds available, the government funding agencies set priorities. Some areas of research are well funded (HIV/AIDS, heart disease, breast cancer) whereas others are not likely to be well funded. An example is the etiological factors in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In this country, there is funding for cholesterol research but little for infectious disease links to the disease. It is all in all a good system but it does limit areas of research. In the global warming arena, getting funding to demonstrate that there is no global warming would be difficult because the scientists who assist in those decisions believe in global warming. I have first hand knowledge of a well respected scientist who would like to discuss why he believes that global warming is not correct. He cannot get someone to sponsor him (ask him to be their guest) at a major research organization due to fear of the impact career of the researchers. 2. Consensus. From time to time, science will make consensus statements. Scientists realize that this is a well educated vote. It does not define what is correct or decided. If the issues were well worked out, there is no need for consensus. Mature scientific ideas are such things as quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, general relativity, and special relativity. Our knowledge and the repeatability of the experiments has convinced all scientists that these ideas not likely to be shown to be wholly incorrect although there may be small corrections in the future. In the later part of the 1800's after Maxwell had unified electromagnetism, it was felt that the physical laws had been determined and all that needed to be done was to work out the specifics. The history of science is full of consensus opinions that were later shown to be wrong. Political decisions should not be made on consensus opinions unless it is an emergency situation. The weather models are not accurate for several days but we are considering major changes in our economies based on these models. The models did not predict the current world wide cooling. That data has now been added and the predictions are for a few years of cooling followed by more warming. That could well be so but it could be that the models are incomplete. Mars has been warming as has the earth which says that the sun is the primary driving force, not us. To some extent, AGW is man wanting to be more significant than he really is. Whether we are affecting the slope of that curve is far from clear. It is prudent to take reasonable measures to decrease greenhouse gases based upon the consensus opinion. If we do not wreck our economies, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is likely good rather than a bad. Finally, I have consistently used the word belief in referring to global warming. As noted above, consensus opinions are needed when science is no sure that an idea is largely correct. It is important to realize that it is a belief to say that the earth is warming (raw data must be 'adjusted' to support that conclusion) though that evidence is rather good. It is much more of a belief that there exists AGW.

Troop24 wrote: "Unfortunately the real lie began a long time before this when these men and women first realized that they were in fact attracted to people of their own gender and chose to cover their feelings and real desires in the name of faith, propriety, or self control. This denial is forced upon them because they have been raised to believe that it is sinful and evil to love someone of the same sex, even though you cannot control it. So these people live lives of shame and fear of discovery of their true identity. They seek out their true desires in the seedier areas that most of us never visit. They destroy the lives of their spouses and children through often loveless and sometimes abusive marriages. Simply because they were forced to lie to themselves from the beginning. You really think Larry Craig just had a "wide stance"? " First, not all of these people 'knew' that they were homosexual - some say that they 'discover' it later. As to controlling their desires, I thought that was the argument that it is OK to allow a homosexual to tent with a heterosexual of the same sex. So which is it, are they expected to control themselves or not? I believe that some (perhaps most) homosexuals have a genetic proclivity for that behavior. That does not make it 'right'. Many alcoholics have a genetic propensity and males with an extra Y chromosome have a proclivity to commit murder (often many) but we do not say that it is OK to be an alcoholic or to murder. So whether homosexuality is right or wrong is based primarily upon religious view points. "HIV/AIDS was a long ignored illness because many thought it was simply a homosexual disease. But then those men who were hiding their real lives from their spouses brought reality home with a death sentence." It is not correct to state that HIV/AIDS was long ignored. When the disease was actually understood to be a disease, enormous efforts were brought to bear to discover how to treat and prevent the disease. The expenditures were greater than research efforts affecting much larger groups of patients. The response was vigorous and swift by government standards. Considering that there were few effective treatments for viruses and that retroviruses were a particularly difficult virus to treat, progress was remarkably rapid. Part of the rapidity of the spread of the disease was continued promiscuity in the homosexual community despite being made fully aware of the risks. Multiple partners and unprotected sex allows the disease to continue to be spread in the homosexual community. HIV/AIDS was and is a disease primarily of IV drug abusers and homosexuals. Have cared for some of those spouses who were infected by their spouses and have no kind words. In the cases that I treated, the spouse knew that they were infected but knowingly infected their spouse which is tantamount to murder in my thoughts.

Dan, My research is in radiobiology among other areas. The risks that you mention are blown out of proportion. You make a good point about spent fuel versus waste. If we would copy France, Japan, and other forward thinking countries, we would have a limited number of breeder reactors. The breeders would produce more nuclear fuel while taking waste products with very long half lives and transforming the waste into much shorter half lives. This means that the storage time is not nearly so long before the material has decayed to stable nuclear species. The waste problems have been solved with Yucca mountain though Obama just closed it before it was ever used despite the nuclear industry being heavily taxed for years by the government to construct Yucca mountain. Any control over R&D dollars spent by the government comes from the politicians. From the government estimates on the 'alternative' energy production, I would argue that far too much is being spent in areas that have no real promise for significant energy production. A family member in a technical field related to this discussion read a report discussing the energy required to construct a large off shore windmill. The total energy generated in the expected lifetime of the windmill is approximately equal to the energy required to fabricate and construct the windmill. If we do not wish to cut our electrical energy consumption by ~80%, we MUST turn to nuclear power or burn more fossil fuels. To cut 80% of our energy consumption means being much hotter/colder, no TV, little lighting, etc. Another way to think about an 80% electrical energy cut, you can only have power coming to your home for 4.8 hours a day.

Dan, I am truly sorry about the losses in your family. I will try to dig up some of the RERF data about birth defects. I know that the incidence in the RERF database was lower than anticipated for first and second generations (there was some thought that the defects would 'skip' a generation but that did not prove to be true). Since you think that most of the energy R&D money is from big oil, you are going to the wrong talks. That is why you have been mislead about the risks of radiation. Most energy R&D (unless including oil money looking for new oil fields) is from the federal government. The radiation studies are from the federal government. The public has been terrorized about the risks of radiation. Linear no threshold has not been shown and there is considerable evidence that hormesis has some credence. See for example: Deinococcus radiodurans which is resistant to large radiation doses. Nuclear power is the only reasonable way to decrease dependence on foreign oil, the modern designs are safe, and the waste problems have been solved if only the politicians will allow the field to move forward.

The radon cited in the article is confounding because it comes from the uranium that occurs naturally in the ground (it is a decay product) and from coal fired power plants. So the adjustment would be to decrease the incidence of lung cancers - not to increase. Thus, it strengthens the conclusions that there is no ill effects due to TMI. There have been extensive data collection to determine the amount and distribution of the radiation release. I have sat through several lectures on the topic. There have been several longitudinal studies on workers in the radiation industry: Hanford, K-25, Savannah River, et cetera. The consistent conclusions are that there is a statistically non-significant incidence in lymphomas but otherwise the age matched cohorts are healthier than the general population. Those studies exclude the very few workers who received a large dose in a short period of time (a criticality accident). The risks of nuclear power are totally overblown. The waste problems were solved years ago. We must turn to nuclear power if we wish decrease our dependence on foreign petroleum. Coal plants produce more radioactive products in the environment than does nuclear plants.

John-in-KC, The amount of radiation released at the Three Mile Island site was small and there have been no significant effects. The news media has terrified the public of nuclear power. As to Chernobyl, the Russians were taking chances and knew it. The Russian designs were for ease & low cost of construction and operation. There are designs now that if the control rods are removed, the physics of the reactor will shut it down without any kind of intervention. We cannot decrease our dependence on foreign oil without nuclear energy. The climate models are fraught with assumptions. Those assumptions could be valid, conservative, or total nonsense. The evidence is toward global warming but it is not clear that humans are too blame. Have you ever asked what is the percentage by volume of carbon dioxide in dry air? Dry air is approximately 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 0.93% argon. That totals 99.93% of the atmosphere is not CO2which makes up just 0.038% of the atmosphere. H2O which is typically ~1% of the atmosphere is also a greenhouse gas. Additionally, there have been temperature increases on Mars (still SUV free - just a couple of fancy dune buggies) due to increased solar output. Some climate models treat the sun as a constant source term. The scientists are reporting what they predict with their models. Some have been too bold. To destroy an economy over these models is not a wise course. At the same time, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels is sensible.

HiLo, You are correct, pedophiles are not the same as homosexuals. Pedophiles, by definition, have sex with prepubertal children - most commonly of the same sex. If the child is pubertal, then the relationship is homosexual for an adult and a child of the same sex. So in general, adults having sex with cubs is pedophilia whereas same sex relationships with boy scout age children are homosexual in nature. As to the effect of adding openly homosexual adults and youth to the BSA, I think that there would be an almost immediate massive cancellation of troops in many sections of the country. Although learning what has happened in other countries can be helpful, it does not necessarily mean that the same thing would happen in the US.

So Dai Nippon means great Japan. In many ways, that term is similar to Brits, Kiwis, and Yanks. I believe that the context of the term determines whether it is offensive or not. Certainly, if the term is used in describing Japanese soldiers from WWII, it would be in keeping with the terms used by allied forces and is not necessarily derogatory to current Japanese. It could be offensive if referring to a Japanese citizen of today. Having read several books dealing with the Japanese treatment of POWs, the term Nip is being kind to the inhuman treatment of the POWs. There can be no defense of the widespread horrible treatment of POWs that was fine with the Japanese high command. So if the discussion is about WWII POWs, Nip is not only OK but appropriate.

Eamonn, If the city had or was in the process of doing the same thing to all groups that have membership requirements, then the city would have a good case. However, the city has singled out the Boy Scouts and ignored other groups. I am not an attorney but from this preliminary ruling, the Boy Scouts must have a valid point of law.

gwd-scouter, The reason that our brand name medications are more expensive is that we are only one of two countries(the other is Japan I believe) that allow the pharmaceutical to make a profit. If the government that so many of you wish to entrust with your medical care would insist that Europe and Canada as well as other socialist countries pay a profit, then our prescription costs would be less. So the difference in prices is due to our government. If we do the same since we are now a socialist country, the pharmaceutical companies will go out of existence (those evil capitalist companies deserve to go out of existence for making a profit). Before the liberals say that the generics are equivalent, that is a lie. They are chemically the same but their bioavailability are often considerably different which means how they affect the patient varies tremendously. Brand name medications must have a bioavailability of +/- 5% which means the amount actually delivered to the target organs can only vary by +/- 5%. Generics only have to show that the tablet/pill/capsule has +/- 15% of the stated dose - they do not have to provide bioavailability information. So that the fillers, adjustments to the drug that improve absorption, adjust pH, etc. are not accounted for. So between to batches of medications you are guaranteed that the difference is at most 10% to the TARGET ORGANS. Whereas, generics may have a 30% difference between batches of the dose. That is a 100 mg dose is acceptable if the dose is between 85 mg and 115 mg and the dose reaching the target organs is not known. That is why controlling the prothrombin time with generic warfarin is much more difficult than with the brand name Coumadin. The public has been sold a bill of goods. Oak Tree, Thanks for the research. I have lived in a socialized medicine country and watched their wealthy go to New York for their health care even though then and now it is considered one of the finest in the world. I have left my medical practice because the federal government is making it difficult to provide the best care for my patients. The senate will now pass the bill since it requires only 51 votes. Those who 'disagree' but voted for cloture are simply liars. They know that they can get their bribes (using our tax dollars) but tell the voters back home 'I voted against it'. All democrats who came from areas that still wish freedom and liberty will hopefully voted out. Those who wish chains and slavery of socialism will be getting their way.

The Federal Court's comments seem to be very positive. Perhaps this case will have a good ending by saying that the city cannot pick who they do not like but rather they will have to evict all groups that have membership standards. If a group has membership standards then it discriminates against those who do not meet the standards. Philadelphia has elevated homosexuality to a more important standard than other groups which is not allowed.

What Landrieu and Reid have done would be called a bribe in any other setting. There has not been sufficient time for the senators to read a 2000+ page complex bill and understand all the implications. It is sad to see the sun setting on our freedoms as an unconstitutional bill goes through without the consideration that the congress has no authority to destroy the best health system in the world.

John, You are so right. Immediately after the terror attacks of 9/11 there were many young men who wished to sign up with the military who were turned away. Those young men would have allowed more rotation of our troops. Every war has shown that it takes 'boots on the ground' to win. We can only 'win' in the middle east with more troops.

I have little information on Ailes but of what I know, there is no reason that he shouldn't be so honored. Why is the left so intolerant of people and ideas that do not agree with their own. The left is much more intolerant than the right that they so vehemently criticize.

NWScouter, If 60% of your representative's constituents agree with his stance on healthcare reform, then he is voting correctly. From many articles that I have read, that is not the case in all congressional districts. I agree, that to an extent the party in power should get much of what it wants. However, if the party in power wants to pass a piece of legislation and their majority of their constituents on a district basis are against the legislation, the congressmen have a duty to not pass it no matter what the party leaders want. From what I have read, that has not been the case for some time with both parties guilty. I am in a representative democracy and wish to be represented - I do not want to be governed by elites that believe that they know better how my life should be lived than I do.

Gern, You can wish to be governed but I want to be represented as the founding fathers setup our representative democracy. Merlyn, If the majority pushes the congress to deny rights, then they can be denied as I outlined. Certainly, a minority can rebel at any time they wish but that was irrelevant to the point. NWScouter, My representative sends out reguar mailings about what is happening and has polls in his district. Additionally, he meets with constituents often. He votes the opinion of his district. Just because a representative won does not mean that his/her constituents cannot have a change in understanding and the majority may longer support the positions held by the representative. At that time, the representative has an obligation to change their vote. I agree that small vocal groups should not rule but this summer the groups were not small and often were comprised of segments of the population not prone to protest - that is significant. These citizens are being disenfranchised by their representatives.

Merlyn, Once again you are wrong. A constitutional amendment could be brought before the congress who are representing the views of the majority to strip a group of some right. If that amendment is then ratified by the states, it becomes the law of the land which the SCOTUS must then follow. Such a sequence of events is very unlikely but possible. Then that group will have lost the right without a means to restore it except by repealing the amendment. So the majority can rule whenever we elect people who believe in a representative democracy. We currently do not have a majority of congressmen who believe in representative democracy.

In this country, the POTUS and governors enforce the legislation of the elected representatives. Your thought process is why democracy is dying in this country.

Majority rules is the basis of democracy. Hopefully, the majority will see fit to pass laws to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. However, the more common phenomenom is now for the the minority to dictate to the majority which is no longer democracy. We do not elect anyone to govern us - we elect people to REPRESENT us. That means that they should represent the views of their constituents. We are (or were) a representative democracy. We are not to governed by our elected officials but represented. So if the constituents in a congressional district are overwhelming against a bill, then the representative should vote against it. To do otherwise is to destroy our democracy which many seem bent on doing.